To what extent can we influence our future? by David C Cosgrove

Dear David,

I seem to be quite bit more pessimistic than you, as I believe that the project of understanding purpose is bound to fail, while you - if I understand your argument properly - believe that something might arise that could provide an explanation of purpose.

I certainly agree that evolution can forge an understanding of particular features of the universe, and in fact, I believe these features to be many; however, I cannot see how purpose could one of them.

Regards,

Attay.

Hello David,

I read your essay and enjoyed it as well as you have written we should not be bounded by 'laws of Nature' for intentions. And the best part I liked was:

"a crucial aspect is change" and yes it is absolutely correct.

But here I could not understand this completely "In the beginning there was nothing

and no change was possible." If no change was possible from the beginning or absolute nothing then how did the existence of universe continue? Or how did the universe formed out of nothing?

But anyway the essay was very interesting, also when you gave light(1) and dark(0).

Also, checkout my essay on "Our Numerical Universe" where I have compared universe with numerical patterns and mathematics.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2815

Best Regards from Himalayas

Ajay

Dear Mr Cosgrove

Thank you for this excellent essay. I find our perspectives to be quite similar in several areas.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assertions that

- we need to seek some kind of unifying complexification scheme - probably encompassing consciousness, and that mathematics is of limited utility in this area.

- that we should entertain models that are not entirely deterministic, leaving room for free will.

- and that the universe in some way "strives" to exist, (from nothing perhaps).

the essay question is difficult and I enjoyed your cautious yet open-minded approach. If you have time, please have a look at my essay "From nothingness to value ethics" - somewhat similar yet different...

Best regards

Gavin Rowland

Hi David -

I find your essay on cosmological evolution very interesting, though I don't agree with the proposition you use to tie this into the theme of the contest - that "timeless, deterministic laws of nature are not compatible with individual aims and the free will to independently pursue those aims." On the contrary, it seems to me that if the indeterminacy of quantum interaction were not constrained in some way to give precisely uniform and predictable statistical behavior at the atomic level, nothing like life or human "free will" could possibly have evolved. We need deterministic physics in order to exist, just as we need biological self-replication. But I agree that absolute deterministic laws are not just "built in" at the basis of everything. In fact, though it's not the main theme of my essay, I suggest that the result of natural selection in physics is to make the universe as changeless and deterministic as it can be. This is hardly incompatible with the emergence of many higher levels both of randomness and order.

I'm most impressed that you've not only taken Smolin's idea seriously, but have developed it much further, in a very original way. I agree with his argument that only something like evolution via natural selection can ultimately explain the finely-tuned complexities of physics. But the notion that universes replicate themselves never seemed at all convincing to me. At best, it's pure speculation that new universes emerge from black holes, and that heritable information about laws of physics somehow gets passed on through this process. In biology, even before we had any notion of genetics, it was always obvious that organisms reproduce and inherit traits, and everything they do has direct relevance to this process. Whereas hardly anything in empirical physics is obviously relevant to cosmological self-replication.

My solution was to consider that reproduction is not the only way information can get itself passed on, so as to evolve through selection. Both in quantum measurement and in human communication, new information is constantly being defined and passed on as the basis for defining further information, in new contexts. And unlike cosmological self-replication, the processes by which things get measured involve every aspect of known physics, one way or another. So this may be a different way of implementing the same intuitions that lie behind your argument. I hope you'll look at my essay and tell me what you think.

In any case, thanks for submitting an unusually intelligent and creative piece of work. I hope we can discuss it further.

Conrad

Dear Dr. David C Cosgrove,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Nice essay Cosgrove,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent, some good quotes are...

1. In the abstract..... "I assert that a way forward (for the progression of research and understanding in cosmology and fundamental physics) can be provided by recognising that the passage of time is real, and change (unpredictable and irreducible) forms a fundamental part of nature. Corollaries include that: the future is not fully determined;......."

2. In page 2 ".....in revealing details of over 13 billion years of spatial expansion, pushing back the established history of the observable universe to within a minute fraction of a second after a hot Big Bang, whose remnants we detect as the cosmic microwave background. Mathematical treatments of this Big Bang, ...."

............ Don't you think by considering only 40 percent of Galaxies which are redshifted, to Universe is expanding and there is Bigbang.... Probably you will have to consider the other 60 percent also.... What do you say?

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

"With only limited data supporting even the tenuous possibility of multiverse existence, all such 'multiple worlds' reasoning thus remains highly speculative."

Consider 3 questions: Is Professor Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? What is relativistic MOND? What is the meaning of MOND in terms of the foundations of physics? For my speculations on the 3 preceding questions, google "milgrom effect david brown".

Khoury and Weltman suggested the existence of chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon the energy-density which is nearby the chameleon particles. Gooogle "chameleon cosmology khoury weltman". There might be MOND-chameleon particles that have variable effective mass depending upon the gravitational acceleration which is nearby the MOND-chameleon particles. There might be several plausible explanations for the empirical successes of MOND, but some kind of multiverse explanation is worth considering as part of the explanation for these empirical successes of MOND. Google "kroupa milgrom".

Dear David Cosgrove

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

David

Wow! Sorry I didn't read your essay earlier. Excellent writing style and I agreed with just about all! And just in time. Nice big score coming!

I really hope you'll rush over to mine which I'm sure you'll like. It leads up to a shockingly simple(ish!) physical mechanism producing a Classical QM derivation. (most physicist will run screaming from the very concept!) It does exactly what you suggested, re-formulates (though Diracs equation holds!) to explain the reality of objective 'wave function collapse', which results from 'requantization' on interactions. There's also a video;Classic QM on Vimeo.

Do throw all you can at it, though it only finishes the well tested model in last years essay which was scored top.

As an aside; (look afterwards) the same fundamentals have already predicted coherent compatible SR and pre 'BigBang'(NOT!) conditions in a fractal 'recycling' cosmology.

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603.

I hope you get to read/comment/score mine before the time limit.

Many thanks for the great read.

Very best

Peter

David,

Interesting concept of the universe viewed as the product of a lengthy historical process shaped by Darwinian-like evolution. This doesn't sound based on the Steinhardt Endless Universe with endlessly repeating cycles of evolution, each accompanied by the creation of new matter, but it has been a few years since I checked out this theory. I believe each cycle was a few trillion years.

A pre-space far beneath our observed world enhanced by neighboring loci, evolving information and algorithms evolving into complexities like our origins. With the full detail of development, it could probably make as much sense as the big bang.

Your roiling sea of potentiality reminds me of the dynamic conditions I speculate might cause dark matter as the product of EM, strong, weak, and graviton forces in a galaxy.

In the short time that remains, I hope you get a chance to check out my essay.

Jim Hoover

Dear Sirs!

Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris